Tachibana Shinichi, Mizukami Akira, Kuroda Shunsuke, Hayashi Tatsuya, Matsumura Akihiko, Goya Masahiko, Sasano Tetsuo
Department of Cardiology Yokohama City Minato Red Cross Hospital Yokohama Japan.
Department of Cardiology Kameda Medical Center Kamogawa Japan.
J Arrhythm. 2020 Mar 2;36(3):439-447. doi: 10.1002/joa3.12320. eCollection 2020 Jun.
It is unclear whether pacing maneuver at the end of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) predicts recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia postintervention.
To investigate whether the predictive value of incremental pacing maneuver after catheter ablation for AF depends on the pacing cycle length and type of AF.
This study included 298 consecutive patients who underwent initial catheter ablation for nonvalvular AF (61% paroxysmal AF [PAF], 39% persistent AF [PeAF]). Rapid atrial pacing was performed at the end of the procedure. We analyzed minimum coupling interval (CI) of pacing, arrhythmia-inducibility, and atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence in patients with PAF and PeAF.
Patients were divided into the following three groups according to their response to pacing maneuver: AF-inducible (inducible group; n = 86), noninducible at CI ≥200 ms (non-CI ≥200 group; n = 100), and noninducible at CI <200 ms (non-CI <200 group; n = 112). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that response to pacing maneuver was significantly associated with recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias ( = .028). Cox-regression analysis showed that non-CI <200 was an independent predictor when the inducible group was used as a reference (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.96, = .031). However, when PAF and PeAF were analyzed separately, non-CI <200 was an independent predictor only in PeAF.
Noninducibility with shorter CI predicted atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence only for PeAF. Pacing CI and type of AF could influence the predictive value of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence.
房颤(AF)导管消融术结束时的起搏操作能否预测干预后房性快速心律失常的复发尚不清楚。
探讨房颤导管消融术后递增起搏操作的预测价值是否取决于起搏周期长度和房颤类型。
本研究纳入298例接受初次非瓣膜性房颤导管消融术的连续患者(61%为阵发性房颤[PAF],39%为持续性房颤[PeAF])。手术结束时进行快速心房起搏。我们分析了PAF和PeAF患者的起搏最小耦合间期(CI)、心律失常诱发情况及房性快速心律失常复发情况。
根据患者对起搏操作的反应分为以下三组:房颤可诱发组(诱发组;n = 86)、CI≥200 ms时不可诱发组(非CI≥200组;n = 100)和CI<200 ms时不可诱发组(非CI<200组;n = 112)。Kaplan-Meier分析显示,起搏操作反应与房性快速心律失常复发显著相关(P = .028)。Cox回归分析显示,以诱发组为参照时,非CI<200是独立预测因素(风险比0.60,95%置信区间0.40 - 0.96,P = .031)。然而,当分别分析PAF和PeAF时,非CI<200仅在PeAF中是独立预测因素。
较短CI时不可诱发仅能预测PeAF的房性快速心律失常复发。起搏CI和房颤类型可影响房性快速心律失常复发的预测价值。